reproductions supplied by edrs are the best that can be madeshifting from an industrial to...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 477 446 HE 035 950

AUTHOR Montez, Joni

TITLE Developing an Instrument to Assess Higher EducationLeadership.

PUB DATE 2003-00-00

NOTE 21p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association (Chicago, IL, April 21-25,2003) .

PUB TYPE Reports Research (143) Speeches/Meeting Papers (150)EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Deans; *Administrator Characteristics;

Administrators; College Administration; *Higher Education;*Instructional Leadership

ABSTRACT

An instrument was developed to assess the construct of highereducation leadership from discrete innate (possessed) and extrinsic (directedtoward others) points of view. Dimensions of the latent construct of highereducation leadership were identified, and their content and the relationshipsbetween their indicators were "mapped" according to the construct's"nomological net," or a map of the content and relationships of thisconstruct. The Higher Education Leadership Instrument (HELI) was developedfrom the process of "bootstrapping" the five dimensional theory of highereducation leadership (integral, relational, credibility, competence, anddirection/4uidance dimensions) with a measure. The pilot HELI had threesections: higher education leadership items, demographic information, andopen-ended questions about the survey and the instrument. Responses to theHELI were received from 232 academic deans through the World Wide Web. TheHELI is meant to be an assessment of the attributes or behaviors leadersconsider to be necessary for effective leadership. It may be necessary torevise and restructure the instrument to reflect combinations of theconstructs of leadership. This preliminary work appears to have developed apromising version of the assessment. (Contains 66 references.) (SLD)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

Higher Education Leadership Instrument

Running head: DEVELOPING A HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP INSTRUMENT

DEVELOPING AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESS

HIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP

By

Joni Montez, Ph.D.Washington State University

PERMISSION TOREPRODUCE AND

DISSENIINATE THISMATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTEDBY

TO THE EDUCATIONALRESOURCES

INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUC IONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

his document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

Presented at the Annual Meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association

April 23, 2003Chicago, Illinois

0

1

1

MT COPY AVAILABLE

Higher Education Leadership Instrument 2

DEVELOPING AN INSTRUMENT TO ASSESSHIGHER EDUCATION LEADERSHIP

Introduction

There is an irony to higher education. On one hand, it is big business--$280 billion in

2000-2001, 15 million students, 1.8 million employees. It has made tremendous progress in

shifting from an industrial to technological base, it fills a demanding workplace with bright and

better trained students, and it continues to hold its stead as the key to economic prosperity and

social mobility. On the other hand, it is regarded as "ill-suited" and "ill-adapted" to the very

technology, skills and knowledge that it purports to advance. Among the reasons is the failure of

its leadership--leaders are criticized for not knowing how to lead (Bensimon, Neumann &

Birnbaum, 1989; O'Brien, 1998; Rhodes, 2001; U.S. Census, 2002).

The development of leaders of institutions of higher education (IHEs) has been a source

of concern in view of the fact that so many come to their positions with less than adequate

preparation (McDade, 1987). Because administrators are either "brought up" from the faculty

ranks or "brought in" from disciplines outside the academy (business, law, ministry), their

preparation has come in the form of on-the-job training or post-appointment professional

development programs (Allen & Cherrey, 2000; McDade, 1987).

Originating discipline notwithstanding, leadership is the common thread in higher

education administration, so it is important to ensure that developmental programs target

leadership for that specific context. Unfortunately, leadership is often treated as a general topic

across disciplines rather than being developed for the institution in which it is practiced (Bass,

1990). Traditional leadership assessment instruments, then, overlook the specific context of

higher education, providing little systematic knowledge for higher education administrators

about behaviors, leadership styles, and effectiveness in IHEs (McDade, 1994; Williams, 2001).

Indeed, no instruments exist that specifically assess higher education leadership.

This paper describes the development of an instrument to assess the construct of higher

education leadership, reports the outcomes of that study, and relates some of its findings to the

professional development of higher education's leaders (Montez, 2002).

The Higher Education Environment

Shared Governance

The unique nature of American higher education sets it apart from the rest of the world-

the structure of its governance is more horizontal than hierarchical, and the institution's

leadership is expanded to include faculty, administrative, regent and, to a lesser degree, students

(Bensimon, Neumann & Birnbaum, 1989; Fisher & Koch, 1996). In this environment the "pull

and tug between faculty and administrators" effects reform (O'Brien, 1998, p. xiii), and protects

the autonomy and academic freedom of its faculty (Vroom, 1983). When it is administered

effectively, the "campus governance machinery" invokes the collective intelligence of the

campus community to common advantage (Fisher & Koch, 1996, p. 144). When it is not, that

tension between factions undermines the very nature of administration in IHEs; conflicts arise

and result in unclear institutional goals and a perceived lack of management (Bensimon et al.,

1989).

Thus, the organizational work of academic leaders requires dynamic, collaborative, cross-

functional teamwork, instead of emphasis on a hierarchy of authority (Williams, 2001). In other

words, if only one aspect of authority is developed, then the entire administrative effect will be

compromised (Green, 1988). In higher education, leadership must be regarded as the effort of

specialized but synergistic factions.

External Forces


4

The environment of higher education is also continually affected by forces outside of it

that shape its programs and the work of its leaders. Some of these forces are (a) the changing

demographics of higher education's students, (b) demands for greater fiscal accountability, (c) a

fast-changing technology, and (d) growing competition from in-house or proprietary institutions.

The demographic makeup of students entering higher education reflects growing numbers

of women, ethnic minorities and "older" students in search of a more practically based education

(Keller, 1983; Murdock & Hoque, 1999). The aging of the populace and the increase in number

and proportion of diverse ethnic groups in the U.S. require astute leadership in higher education

that is aggressive and active in recruitment, retention, remediation, and fund-raising (Murdock &

Hoque, 1999).

Fiscal challenges from federal and state governments abound as colleges and universities

face decreased resources and increased expectations of accountability (Keller, 1983). Prisons,

human rights commissions, health and welfare programs, and Medicaid all vie with IHEs for

precious funding (California Higher Education Policy Center, 1994). The public's concern about

the increased cost of tuition thwarts higher education leaders' attempts to either justify such

increases or land alternative sources of funding (Keller, 1983). This concern is also echoed in

demands that higher education's funding come from those (students, parents, employers) who

directly benefit from it ("A Little Learning," 1997). These external pressures are forcing

universities to cut costs wherever possible while simultaneously implementing new

accountability measures and answering the public skeptics (Marcus, 1997).

The networked work world today seeks stronger ties between educational and practice

systems (Curry & Wergin, 1993). Technology, though welcomed and endemic to higher

education, is another force that weighs against IHEs. IHEs face the expectation that their


5

curricula mirror the reality of the world outside it; conflicts arise when the traditional modes of

instruction are supplanted by an information technology that provides expanded learning

possibilities (Privateer, 1999). The "increased connectivity" (Allen & Cherrey, 2000, p. 1) and

integrated networks in higher education today has changed the delivery of education and students

are more technologically based than liberally educated (Levine, 2000). The lines drawn by the

faculty between skill-based training and theory-based education also often undermine leaders'

efforts in the process of instituting new and innovative curricula, and leaders of IHEs must

carefully balance the rapid technologic change with the faculty's resistance to it (Wolverton,

Gmelch, Montez & Nies, 2001).

Traditional higher education is now competing with different forms of post-secondary job

preparation. More than $60 billion are spent on education and training in the workplace; these

in-house mini-universities are corporate America's response to its dissatisfaction with the skills

and abilities of college graduates (Thompson, 2000). In addition, proprietary (for-profit)

schools generally provide short-term occupational training to a high percentage of women,

minorities, and low-income students (Goodwin, 1991). Others, such as the University of

Phoenix, are accredited and grant degrees (bachelor's, master's, and Ed.D.$). Public officials

warn that "knowledge industries" that can deliver information to untrained workers will replace

university teaching (Eamon, 1999, p. 200). THE leaders are stymied as they try to advance the

merits of a full-blown education to a population that once could cannot afford it, but which now

has viable alternatives.

Leadership for the Higher Education Environment

Given the complexity of higher education, an effective leader must align the internal

environment and its external forces (internal and external) and emphasize the interdependence

I


6

between them. Administrative skills and background knowledge inform the bulk of the

requirements for these leaders. Technical skills in budget and finance and computers, as well as

knowledge of laws and legal issues affecting higher education, have been identified as areas in

which leaders need training (Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo, 1996). Curricular expertise and

interpersonal relations are other areas of administrative knowledge that they must possess

(Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo, 1996).

But technical and administrative skills alone do not make for effective leadership.

Attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs form another perspective from which to examine effective

leaders (Bogue, 1994; Townsend & Bassoppo-Moyo, 1996). For example, Daughdrill (1988)

described passion, vision, stewardship, courage, and an ability to implement different talents at

different times as the essential attributes of leaders who can effectively navigate higher

education's environment. Leaders are also charged with having to efficiently and effectively

resolve the tensions that arise in the process of adapting the learning community and business

management techniques (Kauffinan, 1990). The challenges and opportunities in the

administrative and leadership ranks of colleges and universities create expectations of leaders

who can speak not only to curricular offerings but as well to campus climate, civility, behavior,

and lack of diversity (Kauffman, 1990).

However, little more exists in the higher education literature that describes appropriate

behaviors and attributes of persons for leading in this unique environment. To complement the

information from these limited sources, a limited email survey was next conducted to compile a

"list of critical behaviors" and attributes of current higher education leaders (Crocker & Algina,

1986). This list emerged along a behavioral dichotomy that described leaders' behaviors (a)

demonstrated toward others and (b) those they possessed.


Following the limited survey, the leadership literature was revisited to further explicate

the construct of higher education leadership by identifying theoretical bases for these behavioral

categories. Several better-known, conventional leadership theories were examined. These

included trait (e.g., Galton, 1869), personal-situational (e.g., Blake & Mouton, 1964; Hersey &

Blanchard, 1969), perceptual-cognitive (e.g., Green & Mitchell, 1979; Vroom & Yetton, 1974),

and the transformational/transactional paradigms (e.g,. Bass, 1990; Burns, 1978; Tichy &

Devanna, 1986).

These theories emphasize the attributes and behaviors of individual leaders and presume

the strength and will (also couched in terms of "influence" and/or "charisma") of leaders and

their effect on followers. While these theories explain the interaction between a leader and a

follower, they fail to account for the context in which such relationship occurs (Yukl, 1999).

They also presuppose a hierarchy, where power emanates from leader to follower, as a condition

precedent to leadership.

Based on a seeming mismatch between the constructs highlighted in these theories and

the behaviors described by higher education leaders, the review of leadership literature was

expanded to include inclusive/collaborative (or "women's" ways; e.g., Astin & Leland, 1991;

Helgesen, 1990, 1995), authentic (e.g., Henderson & Hoy, 1982), and team/group (e.g., Bradford

& Cohen, 1998; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993) leadership theories. These theories provide better-

fitting frameworks that explain the work of leaders in distributive, shared-governance

organizations such as higher education.

Personality theories were also tapped to explain the type and range of behaviors that fall

within the higher education leadership framework. These theories include Thurstone's (1934)

"Big-5" personality theory and Jung's (1971) psychological type preferences model. The


dichotomous distinctions in attributes and behaviors disclosed by the email survey also paralleled

the distinctions made by traditional and behavioral approaches to personality assessment. The

gist of the traditional approach suggests that human behavior is motivated by characteristics that

individuals "have." Behavioral approaches include what persons "do" in various situations to

explain their behavior (Goldfried & Kent, 1972).

Some leadership scholars have employed both traditional and behavioral approaches in

explicating the concept of "authenticity" of actions (Etzioni, 1968; Henderson & Hoy, 1982).

They define authenticity as congruence or alignment of a leader's acts and beliefs; in effect,

"matching the leader's words with the leader's actions" (Henderson & Hoy, 1982, p. 4). This

notion of action and beliefs seemed to be reflected in the distinctions noted by higher education

leaders who responded to the exploratory email survey between what they do and what they

possess.

Given these similarities, it was decided to further examine the construct of higher

education leadership from discrete innate (possessed) and extrinsic (directed toward others)

points of view. Those behaviors displayed toward or with others (relational and visionary),

were called "demonstrated resources." The innate attributes (humanistic and competence

beliefs) were termed "core resources."

Conceptual Framework

The systematic scrutiny of the literature on higher education and leadership and the

preliminary email data described the first stage of developing higher education leadership's

content domain (Reise, Waller & Comrey, 2000). The following five dimensions emerged and

were hypothesized to best define aspects of higher education leadership; they answer the

question "What are the descriptors or components of higher education leadership?"


9

1. Integral: This dimension captures the practices and behaviors that are necessary toenhance the organizational relationships in the administration of a shared governancesystem. Its indicators are inclusion, interdependence, and shared authority.

2. Relational: This dimension captures the practices and behaviors that evidence the leader'srelationships on a personal level with members of the 1HE. The indicators of thisdimension are mentoring, inspiration, caring/sensitivity, and interpersonal skills.

3. Credibility: This dimension includes values-based behaviors that exemplify leaders'credibility. Its indicators are accountability, clarity of values, and confidence.

4. Competence: This dimension defines the work ethic of leaders. The indicators of thisdimension are distributed wisdom, hard work, and balance.

5. Direction/Guidance: This dimension exemplifies leaders' behaviors that direct the courseof the 1HE and its members as they confront internal and external challenges. Indicatorsof this dimension describe leaders who are visionary, change agents, and who challengethe status quo.

The dimensions were then compared against five contemporary leadership assessment

instruments to determine whether these same dimensions existed in any of them. Instruments

that are commonly used in leadership assessment were chosen for this comparison- -the Campbell

Leadership Index (CLI; Campbell, 1998), the Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI; Kouzes &

Posner, 1997), Leadership Skills Inventory (LSI; Anderson, 1999), Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire, Form 5x (MLQ; Bass & Avolio, 1995), The Leadership Profile (TLP; Rosenbach,

Sashkin & Harburg, 1996). Criteria for their selection included (a) measurement of leadership

attributes, practices, skills; (b) use of a multirater (360-degree) instrument, allowing for self- and

others' assessment; (c) prior testing on higher education populations; (d) available psychometric

information.

These instruments did not exhibit all of the higher education leadership dimensions

derived to this point, justifying the development of a new instrument.

With the content domain of higher education leadership established, ten hypotheses (two


10

hypotheses per dimension--one for its evinced [demonstrated] aspect, and the other for its innate

[possessed] aspect) about the factorability of these dimensions were tested. Furthermore, it was

hypothesized that the descriptors, or indicators, of these five dimensions, much like those that

emerged in the critical behaviors email study earlier described, could be examined from

dichotomous perspectives--behaviors that are evinced ("demonstrated resources") and those that

are possessed ("core resources"). This dimensional dichotomy is theorized to explain the

authenticity of the higher education leader, answering the question "Does the higher education

leader both possess and practice each descriptor of higher education leadership?"

Methods/Data Sources

Development of the HELI

Thus, the dimensions of the latent construct of higher education leadership were

identified, and their content and the relationships between their indicators were "mapped"

according to the construct's "nomological net," or a "map" of the content and relationships of

this construct (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955; Smith & Glass, 1987). The Higher Education

Leadership Instrument (HELI) was borne of the difficult process of "bootstrapping" the five-

dimensional theory of higher education leadership with a measure (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).

The next phase involved developing the items that represent these dimensions (Hinkin,

1995; Schwab, 1980). Construction of the HELI items focused on how they (a) were phrased,

(b) related to the domain, and (c) pointed the respondent to what was demanded (Nunnally &

Bernstein, 1994). Care was taken so that items would be understood in a literal and pragmatic

sense; simplicity, familiarity, and unambiguousness were imperative in developing the items for

the instrument (Schwarz, 1997).

Initially, the item pool was substantially over-inclusive with items that are representative


11

of both theoretically guided or empirically verified aspects of the construct; variations of these

aspects were also included (Reise et al., 2000). Once the pool was established, each item was

evaluated and rated for inclusion in the HELI. A total of 64 items were placed into the first

version of the instrument. Each dimension contains three to four measures of each indicator;

one-half of the 64 items reflect the core resources of each dimension and the other half reflect its

demonstrated resources.

The pilot version of the HELI contained three sections. The first section contained the 64

higher education leadership items. The second group consisted of demographic items (age,

gender, position, number of years in position, and institution type). The third section contained

open-ended questions to elicit the respondents' comments and opinions about survey content and

delivery and their suggestions for improving and refining the instrument.

Where the first two stages of instrument development provide for establishing validity

and reliability of the HELI, the third stage involves further construct validation, or "elaborating

the nomological net" (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955). This includes tests of criterion-related validity

(assessing two groups for differences on the measure), and discriminant and convergent validity

(by using, for example, the multitrait-multimethod matrix developed by Campbell & Fiske

(1959)). However, given this study's pilot status, only principal components analyses (PCA) to

test the theorized five-dimension structure of (a) demonstrated resource variables and (b) core

resource variables of the HELI and a regression analysis to examine the relationship between the

demonstrated and core resource factors were conducted; subsequent validation studies will

follow.

Administration of HELI

Sample. The sample in this study (n=452) comprised deans randomly drawn from six


12

different types of colleges (agriculture, arts & sciences, business, education, engineering, and

nursing) in IHEs assigned Carnegie classifications of Doctoral/Research University--Extensive

and --Intensive in the Higher Education Directory (2001 ed., Rodenhouse, 2000). The

determination was made to sample only deans in this pilot study because they comprised the

largest group of higher education administrators in the Higher Education Directory from which

to draw a random sample and still have sufficient numbers remaining that could be surveyed

once the instrument was tested and revised.

Web Survey. The HELI was developed for administration over the World Wide Web. It

was anticipated that administration through this medium would yield a higher and faster response

rate. Dillman's (2000) survey design principles were observed in constructing the HELI. A

server domain was acquired and the website (www.the heli.com) was established through a

third-party interne service provider. Protocols were established for secure access to the website,

instantaneous data capture to a downloadable spreadsheet, and automatic prompting for

incomplete or unacceptable responses.

Results

A total of 232 responses were received, for a 51% response rate. The scores were

captured in two datasets--32 demonstrated resource items (HELI-D) and 32 core resource items

(HELI-C)--for purposes of testing.

Internal consistency of the instrument was high (alpha ranged from .74 to .91). Principal

components analyses (PCA) tested the 10 hypotheses related to whether the indicators of the

demonstrated and core resources would load on the five respective dimensions. In all PCAs, a

general leadership factor emerged that accounted for the lion's share of the test variance, along

with one smaller ("integral") factor, and other bipolar, ambiguous factors. While these findings


13

did not support the 10 research hypotheses, they indicated the instrument tapped the higher

education leadership construct.

Regression analysis revealed a strong association between the demonstrated and core

behaviors, confirming all five research hypotheses. The high, positive (.722 to .854) correlation

coefficients for each dichotomous dimension reflected strong agreement by deans that they align

their behaviors with their beliefs; in essence, they "practice what they preach" (Henderson,

1995, 1998; Henderson & Hoy, 1982). The strong associations indicated that the deans believed

in what they do in the course of their own leadership, no matter what leadership task or

responsibility is given to them. Leaders are developed to behave according to the paradigm that

most adequately suits the work environment, but the way these behaviors are demonstrated

emanates from each person differently. In the case of the HELI deans, it appears that their

behaviors were consistent with their personal beliefs.

Though the results of this pilot study indicate a need to revise many of the HELI items to

improve upon the instrument's clarity and definition and/or to redefine the dimensions of the

higher education leadership construct, it is clear that the general findings support the notion that

higher education leadership, at least from the standpoint of the deans studied herein, does indeed

involve facets of the five theorized dimensions. That one general factor emerged in each dataset

indicates the higher education leadership construct was tapped. That the second (albeit, smaller)

factor derived in each dataset comprised the "integral" dimension confirms the existence of the

concepts of inclusion, interdependence, networking, and shared authority in these deans from the

perspectives that they practice them and believe in their relevance.

Discussion

In this study, a systematic approach was taken to identify the attributes and behaviors of


higher education leaders and to translate them, based on relationships to the requirements of

higher education administration, into an instrument to assess leadership for higher education. It

is not an instrument to test a higher education leader's effectiveness but, rather, to determine

what leaders perceive as attributes or behaviors necessary for effective leadership. Continued

validation studies with the instrument will provide a bird's-eye view of respondents' "take" on

these dimensions. For example, we may see that respondents are unable to distinguish the items

in their own minds and will continue to regard some or all of these dimensions as inextricably

connected. Credibility and competence may be subsumed in each dimension of higher education

leadership and therefore not be considered by respondents as attributes that can stand alone. A

leader who is able to guide the direction of the organization in the face of adversity must be

perceived as competent by those affected in the organization. Maintaining a working

relationship with critical outsiders while keeping the mission of the organization at the forefront

is facilitated by the leader's credibility. The general factor that emerged in each of the HELI

PCAs may be an indication of the inextricability of components; that is, that they are seen as

necessarily working in concert. Therefore, it seems likely that restructuring the dimensions to

account for this overlap may occur, once the HELI item content and representativeness test

consistently. This restructuring may involve combining and/or relabeling dimensions to reflect

the combination of constructs, revisiting the dimensions that describe leaders' behaviors, or

defining context-specific behaviors.

But prudence and good practice dictate that other, more diverse methods be employed in

explicating the dimensionality of higher education leadership. Items earmarked for revision

should be pretested in cognitive interviews to determine whether respondents comprehend them

as they were intended (Dillman, 2000). Another informal email study might be employed to ask

15


more questions about perceptions of leadership from various administrators, and this exercise

may help to further delineate the dimensions of higher education leadership. Case studies or

focus groups could also be conducted to assess practicing administrators' perceptions of

leadership in higher education. Narratives generated therefrom will no doubt provide detailed

insight to the relationships that the HELI tried to explicate. An experimental design could be

implemented to test differences of groups of administrators on different variables. This addition

of richer data will continue to elaborate the construct's nomological net, thereby allowing for

further testing and revision of the HELI, and/or redefinition of the construct of higher education

leadership.

Though construct validation continues, the information derived thus far points us toward

consistent, relevant, and meaningful methods for developing personnel in higher education

programs, no matter from what field or discipline they emerged. Some ideas for methods to

employ in developing leaders along the HELI dimensions are discussed below.

Tied directly to the "integral" dimension of higher education leadership is the ability to

function in an organization that includes diverse authority, perspectives, and disciplines. The

work involves balancing the demands and needs of the professoriate, regent, administrative, and

student factions. In this regard, leadership development programs may encourage collaborative

learning and cooperation and developing a relational approach to learning (Belenky, Clinchy,

Goldberger & Tarule, 1986; Murrell & Davis, 1991). Courses that emphasize team building and

teamwork will facilitate building connections between IHEs and agencies or communities

outside of it (Hodgkinson, 1985; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993). In order to encourage an

interactive and interdependent atmosphere in administration, programs might emphasize the

beneficial effect of combining different leadership perspectives with different personal


16

definitions (Kezar, 2002).

From the "relational" dimension of higher education leadership, we see that a leader's

interpersonal relationships with others is not just about caring and being able to inspire. It is also

about resolving conflict, dealing with difficult people, and mentoring (Townsend & Bassoppo-

Moyo, 1996). Leadership development programs should encourage a "mentoring community"

that instills responsibility in, and commitment to, one another (Murrell & Davis, 1991). They

might also focus on human resource management and personnel administration in both education

and other disciplines, to emphasize the distinctions and similarities in communication and

business practices and skills. Studies in group dynamics and decision-making no doubt will

enhance relationships in practice (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993).

"Credibility," the third dimension of higher education leadership, describes the values-

based behaviors of leaders. Ethics courses should target development of a sense of integrity and

a strong moral commitment (Murrell & Davis, 1991). Outside of courses, higher education

leaders might be counseled to learn self-reflection and awareness of identity (Kezar, 2002).

The dimension of "competence" is the area that appears to have greatest attention in

higher education leadership literature. Developing high-level organization skills, and proficiency

in budget, finance and technology, are imperative (Murrell & Davis, 1991; Townsend &

Bassoppo-Moyo, 1996). Understanding the physical workings of the administration is facilitated

by courses in planning, governance, and organizational policy (McDade, 1987). Programs must

also encourage understanding leaders' own capacity for personal growth, the life cycle stages in

academic and administrative life, and the importance of maintaining balance in their lives (Astin

& Leland, 1991; Helgesen, 1995; Murrell & Davis, 1991).

Finally, the "direction/guidance" dimension informs programs on the development of


17

leaders' abilities to move forward in a climate of conflict and change. Focus may be upon

organizational change and contact with external educational and political agencies to encourage

leaders' understanding of the greater social context in which higher education exists. Implicit in

these programs should be opportunities to engage in critical thinking, problem solving, and

tolerance for ambiguity and paradox (Murrell & Davis, 1991). In this way, leaders can better

appreciate the multiple interpretations of institutional leadership in order to shape the vision as a

collective one.

Conclusion

The HELI, though still in its developmental stages, provides one means by which

continued exploration of higher education leadership may be conducted. But it is only one tool

that must be used with many, just as a CT scanner provides one means of diagnosing a medical

condition. Like a single image produced in a CT scan, this study represents one slice of the

whole picture of higher education leadership. With further study, it is hoped more "slices" will

emerge to complete the picture. This, in turn, will provide valuable insight to programs for

developing leaders so they will more capably and confidently navigate the leadership quagmire

in higher education today.


18

References

Allen, K. E., & Cherrey, C. (2000). Systemic leadership: Enriching the meaning of our work.Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Anderson, T. D. (1999). Leadership Skills Inventory. Vancouver, BC: Consulting ResourceGroup International, Inc.

Anonymous. (1997). A little learning. The Economist, 345(8047), 72.Astin, H. S., & Leland, C. (1991). Women of influence, women of vision: A cross-generational

study of leaders and social change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Bass, B. M. (Ed.). (1990). Bass & Stogdill's handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and

managerial applications (3d ed.). New York: The Free Press.Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1995). MLQ Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X-

Short. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.Belenky, M. F., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of

knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books, Inc.Bensimon, E. M. (1989). The meaning of "good presidential leadership": A frame analysis.

Review of Higher Education, 12(2), 107-123.Blake, R. R., & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managerial grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.Bogue, E. G. (1994). Leadership by design: Strengthening integrity in higher education. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bradford, D. L., & Cohen, A. R. (1998). Power up: Transforming organizations through shared

leadership. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.California Higher Education Policy Center. (1994). Three strikes could undermine college

opportunity ( Document no. ED 406 937). San Jose, CA: ERIC.Campbell, D. T. (1998). Campbell Leadership Index (CLI). Minneapolis: National Computer

Systems, Inc.Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the

multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. The

Psychological Bulletin, 52(4), 281-302.Curry, L., & Wergin, J. F. (1993). Educating professionals: Responding to new expectations for

competence and accountability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Daughdrill Jr., J. H. (1988). Essential ingredients for success. In J. L. Fisher & M. W. Tack

(Eds.), Leaders on leadership: The college presidency (Vol. 61, pp. 81-85). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method ( 2d ed.). NewYork: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Eamon, D. B. (1999). Distance education: Has technology become a threat to the academy?Behavior, Research, Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31(2), 197-207.

Etzioni, A. (1968). Basic human needs, alienation, and inauthenticity. American SociologicalReview, 33, 880-881.

Fisher, J. L., & Koch, J. V. (1996). Presidential leadership: Making a difference. Phoenix, AZ:American Council on Education and the Oryx Press.

19


Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius. New York: Appleton.Goldfried, M. R., & Kent, R. N. (1972). Traditional versus behavioral personality assessment: A

comparison of methodological and theoretical assumptions. Psychological Bulletin,77(6), 409-420.

Goodwin, D. (1991). Beyond defaults: Indicators for assessing proprietary school quality.Washington, DC: Planning and Evaluation Service, Office of the Under Secretary.

Green, M. F. (Ed.). (1988). Leaders for a new era. New York: American Council onEducation/Macmillan Series on Higher Education.

Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader-memberinteractions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 429-458.

Helgesen, S. (1990). The female advantage: Women's ways of leadership. New York:Doubleday Currency.

Helgesen, S. (1995). The web of inclusion: A new architecture for building great organizations.New York: Currency/Doubleday.

Henderson, J. E., & Hoy, W. K. (1982). Leader authenticity: The development and test of anoperational measure. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New York.

Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1972). The management of change. Change and the use ofpower. Training and Development Journal, 26(1), 6.

Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations.Journal of Management, 21(5), 967-988.

Hodgkinson, H. L. (1978). Administrators, evaluation, and the stream of time (Vol. 22, pp. 107-113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological types. In Collected Works of C.G. Jung (vol. 6), Bollingerseries X (Original work published 1921) (H. G. Baynes, Trans.). Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performanceorganization. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Kauffman, J. F. (1990). Administration then and now (Vol. 72, pp. 99-107). San Francisco:Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Keller, G. (1983). Academic strategy: The management revolution in American highereducation. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kezar, A. (2002). Capturing the promise of collaborative leadership and becoming a pluralisticleader: Using case stories to transform beliefs. Metropolitan universities: Aninternational forum, 13(2), 68-79.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (1997). Leadership practices inventory (LPI): Self. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.

Levine, A. E. (2000, October 27, 2000). The future of colleges: 9 inevitable changes. Chronicleof Higher Education, pp. B10-11.

Marcus, L. R., Monahan, T. C., & White Jr., E. H. (1997). Preparing educational leaders for thetwenty-first century. Journal of Leadership Studies, 4(1), 107-121.

McDade, S. A. (1987). Higher education leadership: Enhancing skills through professionaldevelopment programs (Vol. 5). Washington, DC: Clearinghouse on Higher Education.

Montez, J. M. (2002). Developing and piloting the Higher Education Leadership Instrument(HELL): "Bootstrapping" theory and measurement. Unpublished Dissertation,Washington State University, Pullman, WA.


110

Murdock, S. H., & Hogue, M. N. (1999). Demographic factors affecting higher education in theUnited States in the twenty-first century. New Directions for Higher Education,108(Winter), 5-13.

Murrell, P. H., & Davis, T. M. (1991). Visions and priorities: The future of higher educationdoctoral programs. In J. D. Fife & L. F. Goodchild (Eds.), Administration as a profession(Vol. 76, pp. 103-113). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory ( 3d ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

O'Brien, G. D. (1998). All the essential half-truths about higher education. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Privateer, P. M. (1999). Academic technology and the future of higher education: Strategic pathstaken and not taken. Journal of Higher Education, 70(1), 60-79.

Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision.Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 287-297.

Rhodes, F. H. (2001). The creation of the future: The role of the American university. Ithaca,NY: Cornell University Press.

Rodenhouse, M. P. (Ed.). (2000). 2001 Higher education directory. Falls Church, VA: HigherEducation Publications.

Rosenbach, W. E., Sashkin, M., & Harburg, F. (1996). The leadership profile: On becoming abetter /eader.Unpublished manuscript, Seabrook, MD.

Schwab, D. P. (1980). Construct validity in organizational behavior: In B. M. Staw & L. L.Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 3-43). Greenwich,CT: JAI Press.

Schwarz, N. (1997). Questionnaire design: The rocky road from concepts to answers. In L.Lyberg, P. Biemer, M. Collins, E. De Leeuw, C. Dippo, N. Schwarz & D. Trewin (Eds.),Survey measurement and process quality (pp. 29-45). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Smith, M. L., & Glass, G. V. (1987). Research and evaluation in education and the socialsciences. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Thompson, G. (2000). Unfulfilled prophecy: The evolution of corporate colleges. Journal ofHigher Education, 71(3), 322-341:

Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of mind. Psychological Review, 41, 1-32.Tichy, N. M., & Devanna, M. A. (1986). The transformational leader. New York: Wiley.Townsend, B. K., & Bassoppo-Moyo. (1996, April 10, 1996). If I'd only known: Administrative

preparation that could have made a difference. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, New York City, NY.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2003, March 3, 2003). POPClocks, [Website]. U.S. Census Bureau,Population Division. Available: http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html [2003.

Vroom, V. H. (1983). Leaders and leadership in academe. The Review of Higher Education, 6(4),367-386.

Vroom, V. H., & Yetton, P. W. (1974). Leadership and decision-making. New York: Wiley.Williams, J. F. (2001). Leadership evaluation and assessment. Journal of Library Administration,

32(3/4), 145-167.Wolverton, M., Gmelch, W. H., Montez, J., & Nies, C. T. (2001). The changing nature of the

academic deanship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic

leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285-305.


U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)

L DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:I 146-(AA-Ek-rr ID A55E53Title: "re\M-0191k[Cr l

4-k1.6i-ta--eplAcgpora LOVEP-Sti-tP

Author(s): Kt 1 AA,01.1:(-2 i Fin D.

Corporate Source: Publication Date:

*1121200_3

IL REPRODUCTION RELEASE:

In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in themonthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy, andelectronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, if reproductionrelease is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.

If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the page.

ERICEducational Resources lolurmolion Center

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1

Level 1

Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival

media (e.g.. electronic) and paper copy.

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2A documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY


2A

Level 2A

Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche and n electronic media for

ERIC archival collection subscribers only

The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2B documents

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN

MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY


2B

Level 28

Check here for Level 2B release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche only

Documents will be processed as indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.

I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate thisdocument as indicated above. Reproduction from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees andits system contractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and otherservice agencies to satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.

Signature: Printed Name/Position/Title:Sign

here, "# JOKU AADWT"Telephone: FAXplease 115 5. E (-hart 5f. 061 33415 (I Spq 33263 (05-E-Mail Address:Pt/a-LA/Vat WA qct ,y0/Cll/n/Pealt4/1 VIKkNere &16/03

(Over)

gap.

III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):

If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another' source, pleaseprovide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)

Publisher/Distributor:

Address:

Price:

IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:

If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:

Name:

Address:

V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:

Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse:ERIC CLEARINGHOUSE ON ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND1129 SHRIVER LAB

COLLEGE PARK, MD 20742-5701ATTN: ACQUISITIONS

However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:

ERIC Processing and Reference Facility4483-A Forbes BoulevardLanham, Maryland 20706

Telephone: 301-552-4200Toll Free: 800-799-3742

FAX: 301 - 552.4700e-mail: [email protected]: http://ericfacility.org

EFF-088 (Rev. 2/2001)